[Killer Bunny]

bemused40, on Apr 16 2008, 05:36 PM, said:

The market has boomed because we live on a small island where property is in short supply, the planning process restrictive and the population growing rapidly, fuelled by a strong economy and easy credit. Its weakening now because of the credit crunch, but that is a short-term problem which will pass, whilst the demographics won't change. That's why I doubt the correction will be anything like as bad as you all think,

[bemused40]

Bloo Loo, on Apr 18 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

Thank you. The wine comment was not aimed at you, as you rightly pointed out.

As for tax, well it would seem to me that a tax at source on business loans for a BTL borrower would level the playing field (residential homes only).

An OO pays tax on his income then the mortgage costs go onto net. The BTL pays no tax on the interest and so has an immediate advantage in that tax is deducted After interest costs.

Furthermore, banks USED to take potential rental income into account, it appears along with other criteria they stopped caring from about 2005 onwards, along with 100% IO loans etc, making the FTB even more at a disadvantage.

I do beleive the lending situation has changed now though, but also that something needs to be done about the tax situation as when all is recovered, the same thing will happen again. I for one could do with the madness

If BTL is his business, then interest is a legitimate cost and he is entitled to treat it as such in the same way that any other business can deduct legitimate cost from his gross income. You wouldn't tax a retailer on his gross sales - you tax him in the profit he makes after deducting the cost of his stock and overheads.

If BTL is a sideline, then the capital the BTLer puts up is also coming from taxed income in the same way as it is from an owner-occupier. And if you treated them any differently, amateur BTLs could easily set up as companies.

The problem is that you're all looking for someone to blame for the state of the housing market, but it isn't any-specific-body's fault - its just economics. Markets go up, get overheated, and come down again, but in the long-run, they tend to go up. Its just nature, its not anybody's fault.

Oh, and thank you for that informed comment, FP.

This post has been edited by bemused40: 18 April 2008 - 04:01 PM

[macfarlan]

I think you're the one who's looking for someone to blame bemused40

bemused40, on Apr 18 2008, 03:09 PM, said:

5. People have made lots of assumptions about me!

8. I wasn't the bloke drinking the wine in the first place - that was some bloke called Dominic who you apparently erroneously mistook for a daytime TV presenter.

Was it Bloo Loo that 'erroneously mistook a bloke called Dominic for a daytime TV presenter', or was it the all knowing mind of the entity that is the forum?

Or was it merely another poster?

Really, why do you visit the site? I don't get it. Is it simply to tell us all off, tell us we're all wrong and that it's nobodys fault? If you're so annoyed with the site just leave, instead of firing off the kind of random accusations to individual posters about everyone on the site that provoke the kind of response your complaining about. No ones forcing you to be here. I know you feel like you need to defend yourself but your initial posts werent the most polite were they?

Besides that, your argument is contradictory. You suggest that property porn has no bearing on the market as it's just entertainment and no one should be upset by it, yet you get upset about the fact that Jonathan Davis is on an entertainment programme giving an opposing view to the one you like as if it has a bearing on the market.

This post has been edited by macfarlan: 18 April 2008 - 05:21 PM

[Bloo Loo]

bemused40, on Apr 18 2008, 04:59 PM, said:

If BTL is his business, then interest is a legitimate cost and he is entitled to treat it as such in the same way that any other business can deduct legitimate cost from his gross income. You wouldn't tax a retailer on his gross sales - you tax him in the profit he makes after deducting the cost of his stock and overheads.

If BTL is a sideline, then the capital the BTLer puts up is also coming from taxed income in the same way as it is from an owner-occupier. And if you treated them any differently, amateur BTLs could easily set up as companies.

The problem is that you're all looking for someone to blame for the state of the housing market, but it isn't any-specific-body's fault - its just economics. Markets go up, get overheated, and come down again, but in the long-run, they tend to go up. Its just nature, its not anybody's fault.

Oh, and thank you for that informed comment, FP.

A sideline is a business. BTLS: If tax evasion is your bag and i find out you are up to it, Im the face of doom for you.

Its not beyond the wit of man to sort out this problem of an army of amatuers, about to be bust themselves, helping to overinflate a market for a vital living necessity.

Speculation should be done with post tax income in this product class.

[Killer Bunny]

The problem is that you're all looking for someone to blame for the state of the housing market, but it isn't any-specific-body's fault - its just economics. Markets go up, get overheated, and come down again, but in the long-run, they tend to go up. Its just nature, its not anybody's fault.
[/quote]
So, you'll next tell us that shares will always go up - Just like in Japan since 1989?